Inhaled Volatiles for Status Asthmaticus, Epilepsy, and Difficult Sedation in Adult ICU and PICU: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Inhaled volatile anesthetics support management of status asthmaticus (SA), status epilepticus (SE), and difficult sedation (DS). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of using inhaled anesthetics for SA, SE, and DS in adult ICU and PICU patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Primary literature search that reported the use of inhaled anesthetics in ventilated patients with SA, SE, and DS from 1970 to 2021. DATA EXTRACTION: Study data points were extracted by two authors independently. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool for case studies/series, Newcastle criteria for cohort/case-control studies, and risk-of-bias framework for clinical trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: Primary outcome was volatile efficacy in improving predefined clinical or physiologic endpoints. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and delivery logistics. From 4281 screened studies, the number of included studies/patients across diagnoses and patient groups were: SA (adult: 38/121, pediatric: 28/142), SE (adult: 18/37, pediatric: 5/10), and DS (adult: 21/355, pediatric: 10/90). Quality of evidence was low, consisting mainly of case reports and series. Clinical and physiologic improvement was seen within 1-2 hours of initiating volatiles, with variable efficacy across diagnoses and patient groups: SA (adult: 89-95%, pediatric: 80-97%), SE (adults: 54-100%, pediatric: 60-100%), and DS (adults: 60-90%, pediatric: 62-90%). Most common adverse events were cardiovascular, that is, hypotension and arrhythmias. Inhaled sedatives were commonly delivered using anesthesia machines for SA/SE and miniature vaporizers for DS. Few (10%) of studies reported required non-ICU personnel, and only 16% had ICU volatile delivery protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Volatile anesthetics may provide effective treatment in patients with SA, SE, and DS scenarios but the quality of evidence is low. Higher-quality powered prospective studies of the efficacy and safety of using volatile anesthetics to manage SA, SE, and DS patients are required. Education regarding inhaled anesthetics and the protocolization of their use is needed.

Effect of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sedation of critically ill patients with inhaled anaesthetics may reduce lung inflammation, time to extubation, and ICU length of stay compared with intravenous (i.v.) sedatives. However, the impact of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in this population is unclear. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarise the effect of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for case series, retrospective, and prospective studies in critically ill adults sedated with inhaled anaesthetics. Outcomes included delirium, psychomotor and neurological recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, ICU memories, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and instruments used for assessment. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in distinct populations of post-cardiac arrest survivors (n=4), postoperative noncardiac patients (n=3), postoperative cardiac patients (n=2), and mixed medical-surgical patients (n=4). Eight studies reported delirium incidence, two neurological recovery, and two ICU memories. One study reported on psychomotor recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. A meta-analysis of five trials found no difference in delirium incidence between inhaled and i.v. sedatives (relative risk 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.54]). Compared with i.v. sedatives, inhaled anaesthetics were associated with fewer hallucinations and faster psychomotor recovery but no differences in other outcomes. There was heterogeneity in the instruments used and timing of these assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence available, there is no difference in cognitive and psychiatric outcomes between adults exposed to volatile sedation or intravenous sedation in the ICU. Future studies should incorporate outcome assessment with validated tools during and after hospital stay. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021236455.

Effect of sedation with inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has renewed interest in the use of inhaled anaesthetics for sedation of ventilated critically ill patients. Preliminary data show that inhaled anaesthetics reduce lung inflammation, time to extubation and intensive care unit length of stay compared with intravenous sedatives. However, the impact of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes is not well described in this setting. Randomised controlled trials are underway to establish if inhaled anaesthetics affect these and other patient and health system outcomes. Our aim is to summarise the known effects of inhaled sedatives on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this systematic review, we will use MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO to identify studies from 1970 to 2021 that assessed cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adult patients sedated with inhaled anaesthetics. We will include case series, observational and cohort studies and randomised controlled trials. We will exclude case studies due to the heterogeneity of reporting in these studies. For randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled to intravenous sedation, we will report cognitive and psychiatric outcomes for both study arms. Studies will be selected based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Data will be extracted using a standardised data extraction tool by two independent reviewers. Studies will be assessed for bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials, or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies. Findings will be reported according to outcome and descriptive statistics will be used to illustrate findings in a narrative fashion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The systematic review uses published data and therefore does not require ethics approval. Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at conferences related to the field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236455.

Use of inhalational anaesthetic agents in paediatric and adult patients for status asthmaticus, status epilepticus and difficult sedation scenarios: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled volatile anaesthetics have a long tradition of use as hypnotic agents in operating rooms and are gaining traction as sedatives in intensive care units (ICUs). However, uptake is impeded by low familiarity with volatiles, unique equipment and education needs. Inhaled anaesthetics are often reserved in ICUs as therapies for refractory and life threatening status asthmaticus, status epilepticus, high and difficult sedation need scenarios given they possess unique pharmacological properties to manage these medical conditions while providing sedation to acutely ill patients. The objective of this systematic review is to collate evidence regarding the efficacy, safety and feasibility of volatile anaesthetics in adult and paediatric ICU patients for these three emergency conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of the primary studies in adult and paediatric ICU patients with status asthmaticus, status epilepticus and high/difficult sedation needs. We will include observational and interventional studies published from 1970 to 2021 in English or French investigating patients who have received a volatile inhalational agent for the above indications. We will evaluate the efficacy, safety, feasibility and implementation barriers for the volatile anaesthetics for each of three specified indications. Included studies will not be limited by necessity of a comparator arm. We will also evaluate clinical characteristics, patient demographics and provider attitudes towards volatile anaesthetic administration in defined critical care scenarios. Data will be extracted and analysed across these domains. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index as well as the Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Register will be queried with our search strategy.Descriptive and statistical analysis will be employed where appropriate. Data extraction and quality assessment will be performed in duplicate using a standardised tool. A narrative approach and statistical analyses will be used to describe patient characteristics, volatile efficacy, safety concerns, technical administration, attitudes towards administration and other implementation barriers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics board approval will be necessary for this systematic review. This research is independently funded. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentation. PROSPERO NUMBER: CRD42021233083.

Moral Distress and Other Wellness Measures in Canadian Critical Care Physicians.

Rationale: Understanding the magnitude of moral distress and its associations may point to solutions. Objectives: To understand the magnitude of moral distress and other measures of wellness in Canadian critical care physicians, to determine any associations among these measures, and to identify potentially modifiable factors. Methods: This was an online survey of Canadian critical care physicians whose e-mail addresses were registered with either the Canadian Critical Care Society or the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. We used validated measures of moral distress, burnout, compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, and resilience. We also measured selected individual, practice, and workload characteristics. Results: Of the 499 physicians surveyed, 239 (48%) responded and there were 225 usable surveys. Respondents reported moderate scores of moral distress (107 ± 59; mean ± standard deviation, maximum 432), one-third of respondents had considered leaving or had previously left a position because of moral distress, about one-third met criteria for burnout syndrome, and a similar proportion reported medium-high scores of compassion fatigue. In contrast, about one-half of respondents reported a high score of compassion satisfaction, and overall, respondents reported a moderate score of resilience. Each of the "negative" wellness measures (moral distress, burnout, and compassion fatigue) were associated directly with each of the other "negative" wellness measures, and inversely with each of the "positive" wellness measures (compassion satisfaction and resilience), but moral distress was not associated with resilience. Moral distress was lower in respondents who were married or partnered compared with those who were not, and the prevalence of burnout was lower in respondents who had been in practice for longer. There were no differences in any of the wellness measures between adult and pediatric critical care physicians. Conclusions: Canadian critical care physicians report moderate scores of moral distress, burnout, and compassionate fatigue, and moderate-high scores of compassion satisfaction and resilience. We found no modifiable factors associated with any wellness measures. Further quantitative and qualitative studies are needed to identify interventions to reduce moral distress, burnout, and compassion fatigue.

Neurodevelopmental outcome at 5 years of age after general anaesthesia or awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: In laboratory animals, exposure to most general anaesthetics leads to neurotoxicity manifested by neuronal cell death and abnormal behaviour and cognition. Some large human cohort studies have shown an association between general anaesthesia at a young age and subsequent neurodevelopmental deficits, but these studies are prone to bias. Others have found no evidence for an association. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in early infancy affects neurodevelopmental outcomes. METHODS: In this international, assessor-masked, equivalence, randomised, controlled trial conducted at 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, we recruited infants of less than 60 weeks' postmenstrual age who were born at more than 26 weeks' gestation and were undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy, without previous exposure to general anaesthesia or risk factors for neurological injury. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a web-based randomisation service to receive either awake-regional anaesthetic or sevoflurane-based general anaesthetic. Anaesthetists were aware of group allocation, but individuals administering the neurodevelopmental assessments were not. Parents were informed of their infants group allocation upon request, but were told to mask this information from assessors. The primary outcome measure was full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, third edition (WPPSI-III), at 5 years of age. The primary analysis was done on a per-protocol basis, adjusted for gestational age at birth and country, with multiple imputation used to account for missing data. An intention-to-treat analysis was also done. A difference in means of 5 points was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This completed trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 4023 infants were screened and 722 were randomly allocated: 363 (50%) to the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 359 (50%) to the general anaesthesia group. There were 74 protocol violations in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and two in the general anaesthesia group. Primary outcome data for the per-protocol analysis were obtained from 205 children in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 242 in the general anaesthesia group. The median duration of general anaesthesia was 54 min (IQR 41-70). The mean FSIQ score was 99·08 (SD 18·35) in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 98·97 (19·66) in the general anaesthesia group, with a difference in means (awake-regional anaesthesia minus general anaesthesia) of 0·23 (95% CI -2·59 to 3·06), providing strong evidence of equivalence. The results of the intention-to-treat analysis were similar to those of the per-protocol analysis. INTERPRETATION: Slightly less than 1 h of general anaesthesia in early infancy does not alter neurodevelopmental outcome at age 5 years compared with awake-regional anaesthesia in a predominantly male study population. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Thrasher Research Fund, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research (UK), Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Health, Fonds NutsOhra, UK Clinical Research Network, Perth Children's Hospital Foundation, the Stan Perron Charitable Trust, and the Callahan Estate.

Enrollment challenges in multicenter, international studies: The example of the GAS trial.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized trials are important for generating high-quality evidence, but are perceived as difficult to perform in the pediatric population. Thus far there has been poor characterization of the barriers to conducting trials involving children, and the variation in these barriers between countries remains undescribed. The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia (GAS) trial, conducted in seven countries between 2007 and 2013, provides an opportunity to explore these issues. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis to evaluate the reasons for variation in enrollment between countries in the GAS trial, looking specifically at the number of potential subjects screened, and the subsequent application of four exclusion criteria that were applied in a hierarchical order. RESULTS: A total of 4023 patients were screened by 28 centers in seven countries. Australia and the USA screened the most subjects, accounting for 84% of all potential trial participants. The percentage of subjects eliminated from the screened pool by each exclusion criterion varied between countries. Exclusion due to a predefined condition (H1) eliminated only 5% of potential subjects in Italy and the UK, but 37% in Canada. Exclusions due to a contraindication or a physician's refusal most impacted enrollment in Australia and the USA. The patient being "too large for spinal anesthesia" was the most commonly cited by anesthetists who refused to enroll a patient (64% of anesthetist refusals). The majority of surgeon refusals came from the USA, where surgeons preferred the patient to receive a general anesthetic. The percentage of approached parents refusing to consent ranged from a low of 3% in Italy to a high of 70% in the USA and Netherlands. The most frequently cited reason for parent refusal in all countries was a preference for general anesthesia (median: 43%, range: 32%-67%). However, a sizeable proportion of parents in all countries had a contrasting preference for spinal anesthesia (median: 25%, range: 13%-31%), and 23% of U.S. parents expressed concern about randomization. CONCLUSION: The GAS trial highlights enrollment challenges that can occur when conducting multicenter, international, pediatric studies. Investigators planning future trials should be aware of potential differences in screening processes across countries, and that exclusions by anesthetists and surgeons may vary in reason, in frequency, and by country. Furthermore, investigators should be aware that the U.S. centers encountered particularly high surgeon and parental refusal rates and that U.S. parents were uniquely concerned about randomization. Planning trials that address these difficulties should increase the likelihood of successfully recruiting subjects in pediatric trials.

Sedation and neurodevelopmental outcomes in PICU: Identification of study groups.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: As little as 30 minutes of exposure to anesthetic and sedative agents may adversely affect the developing brain. Safe, humane management of critically ill infants requires the use of sedative agents, often for prolonged periods. We sought to identify two comparable groups of critical care patients who did or did not receive sedatives, with the aim of designing a long-term neurodevelopment follow-up study. This feasibility study aimed to determine if two comparable groups could be found. METHODS: Infants with respiratory diagnoses having noninvasive ventilation without sedation (Group C) or intubation and ventilation with sedation (Group S) were identified by chart review. Charts of patients fulfilling the above inclusion criteria were searched for exclusion criteria including neurological disease, extreme prematurity, congenital cardiac disease, and genetic anomalies. Data were extracted to score pediatric severity of illness scores (PRISM and PELOD) for each patient. These scores were then compared using the absolute scores and by risk strata. RESULTS: Group S included 33 patients and Group C had 39. The absolute PRISM and PELOD scores were different between groups. Comparing the groups in three risk strata (PRISM greater or less than 5 or 10), there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: It is not possible to randomize infants to sedation or no sedation to investigate neurodevelopmental outcomes. This phase of the project aimed to determine the comparability of two groups of PICU patients. These findings indicate that these groups could be enrolled as exposed and control subjects in an outcomes study.

Surgical practice and outcome in 711 neonates and infants undergoing hernia repair in a large multicenter RCT: Secondary results from the GAS Study.

BACKGROUND: The GAS study is an international RCT to evaluate neurodevelopmental outcome comparing general plus regional anesthesia versus regional anesthesia alone in 722 neonates and infants who had inguinal hernia repair up to 60 weeks of postmenstrual age. This paper comprises a secondary descriptive analysis of hernias, aspects of surgery and outcomes. METHODS: The incidence of unilateral and bilateral hernias, side preponderance, predictive factors for bilateral hernias and surgical approaches were collated. Follow-up outcome data were examined at 2 years. RESULTS: Of 711 eligible patients, there were 679 with hernia data showing that 321 hernias were right-sided, 190 left and 168 bilateral. Male to female ratio was 5:1. Of those with unilateral hernias, 25.8% underwent contralateral exploration and in these cases a patent processus vaginalis was found in 68.9%. Bilateral hernias were more common in younger and female patients. At 2 years there was a recurrence rate of 0.99% and in 2.7% of patients a hernia was evident on the contralateral side (metachrony), and this was unrelated to the anesthesia technique. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral hernias are associated with lower gestational age at birth and female gender. There was a low incidence of complications and the anesthesia technique did not affect surgical outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1 evidence from prospective treatment study.

Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age after general anaesthesia and awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that general anaesthetics affect brain development. There is mixed evidence from cohort studies that young children exposed to anaesthesia can have an increased risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcome. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in infancy has any effect on neurodevelopmental outcome. Here we report the secondary outcome of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age in the General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia (GAS) trial. METHODS: In this international assessor-masked randomised controlled equivalence trial, we recruited infants younger than 60 weeks postmenstrual age, born at greater than 26 weeks' gestation, and who had inguinal herniorrhaphy, from 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either awake-regional anaesthesia or sevoflurane-based general anaesthesia. Web-based randomisation was done in blocks of two or four and stratified by site and gestational age at birth. Infants were excluded if they had existing risk factors for neurological injury. The primary outcome of the trial will be the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Third Edition (WPPSI-III) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient score at age 5 years. The secondary outcome, reported here, is the composite cognitive score of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III, assessed at 2 years. The analysis was as per protocol adjusted for gestational age at birth. A difference in means of five points (1/3 SD) was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516 and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 363 infants were randomly assigned to receive awake-regional anaesthesia and 359 to general anaesthesia. Outcome data were available for 238 children in the awake-regional group and 294 in the general anaesthesia group. In the as-per-protocol analysis, the cognitive composite score (mean [SD]) was 98.6 (14.2) in the awake-regional group and 98.2 (14.7) in the general anaesthesia group. There was equivalence in mean between groups (awake-regional minus general anaesthesia 0.169, 95% CI -2.30 to 2.64). The median duration of anaesthesia in the general anaesthesia group was 54 min. INTERPRETATION: For this secondary outcome, we found no evidence that just less than 1 h of sevoflurane anaesthesia in infancy increases the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age compared with awake-regional anaesthesia. FUNDING: Australia National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research UK, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Heath, Fonds NutsOhra, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN).

Predictors of Failure of Awake Regional Anesthesia for Neonatal Hernia Repair: Data from the General Anesthesia Compared to Spinal Anesthesia Study--Comparing Apnea and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Awake regional anesthesia (RA) is a viable alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for infants undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Benefits include lower incidence of postoperative apnea and avoidance of anesthetic agents that may increase neuroapoptosis and worsen neurocognitive outcomes. The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia study compares neurodevelopmental outcomes after awake RA or GA in otherwise healthy infants. The aim of the study is to describe success and failure rates of RA and report factors associated with failure. METHODS: This was a nested cohort study within a prospective, randomized, controlled, observer-blind, equivalence trial. Seven hundred twenty-two infants 60 weeks or less postmenstrual age scheduled for herniorrhaphy under anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive RA (spinal, caudal epidural, or combined spinal caudal anesthetic) or GA with sevoflurane. The data of 339 infants, where spinal or combined spinal caudal anesthetic was attempted, were analyzed. Possible predictors of failure were assessed including patient factors, technique, experience of site and anesthetist, and type of local anesthetic. RESULTS: RA was sufficient for the completion of surgery in 83.2% of patients. Spinal anesthesia was successful in 86.9% of cases and combined spinal caudal anesthetic in 76.1%. Thirty-four patients required conversion to GA, and an additional 23 patients (6.8%) required brief sedation. Bloody tap on the first attempt at lumbar puncture was the only risk factor significantly associated with block failure (odds ratio = 2.46). CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of spinal anesthesia was low. Variability in application of combined spinal caudal anesthetic limited attempts to compare the success of this technique to spinal alone.